A Cracked article for the "news and articles" forum. I've noticed some of the fallacies happening here so I thought it would be useful to post. I know I've done so in the past and will in the future, but it's nice to keep them in mind so you do it less:http://www.cracked.com/blog/4-reasons-h ... ach-other/

The Great Hippo wrote:[T]he way we treat suspected terrorists genuinely terrifies me.

Alexander Hamilton wrote:Ambition, avarice, personal animosity, party opposition, and many other motives not more laudable than these, are apt to operate as well upon those who support as those who oppose the right side of a question. Were there not even these inducements to moderation, nothing could be more ill-judged than that intolerant spirit which has, at all times, characterized political parties. For in politics, as in religion, it is equally absurd to aim at making proselytes by fire and sword. Heresies in either can rarely be cured by persecution.

Except for all the commentators who wrote about how it wasn't funny or good and thus sucked. Those people just suck. They probably pursue the cause of suckiness because they hate the world, since they are not really human and want to destroy everything.

But it's not like just any article flies here, right? Like, if I posted a wikipedia article about Simpsons Episode 12 of Season 17, or something, that's an article but I don't think it would fit this forum.

Terry Pratchett wrote:The trouble with having an open mind, of course, is that people will insist on coming along and trying to put things in it.

sourmìlk wrote:But it's not like just any article flies here, right? Like, if I posted a wikipedia article about Simpsons Episode 12 of Season 17, or something, that's an article but I don't think it would fit this forum.

If we need to, we could create a thread for "articles that don't really deserve their own thread" sort of like the "in other news" thread. I just thought this one happened to be significantly relevant to this forum, so I posted it.

Jave D wrote:I like that article.

Except for all the commentators who wrote about how it wasn't funny or good and thus sucked. Those people just suck. They probably pursue the cause of suckiness because they hate the world, since they are not really human and want to destroy everything.

Cracked readers... you can't understand them.

The Great Hippo wrote:[T]he way we treat suspected terrorists genuinely terrifies me.

sourmìlk wrote:Mind you, that article then went on to "insult" sexists by saying they're all virgins.

To be fair, the article was specifically addressing defenders of sexist comics, who, presumably, get less action that your run-of-the-mill sexists.

More than that, the article was specifically addressing people who'd commented in his earlier article (the X most sexist depictions of women in comics -- can't remember the exact title offhand and I can't access Cracked here). It's more so insulting commenters in that previous thread, then segueing from that into a broader discussion on sexism in comics.

On the original topic, I think it's appropriate to discuss relevant/interesting Cracked articles here. It's not only news that gets discussed in N&A.

Jave D wrote:Except for all the commentators who wrote about how it wasn't funny or good and thus sucked. Those people just suck. They probably pursue the cause of suckiness because they hate the world, since they are not really human and want to destroy everything.

Cracked commenters are like 50% trolls. Some of the columnists take frequent jabs at the commenters (though not all -- Luke reads the comments, John Cheese never does, e.g.). And occasionally stupid comments get called out altogether rather -- the "stupidest defenses of sexism" article was entirely borne out of, well, stupid defenses of sexism in an earlier article. KF

sourmìlk wrote:I'm not worried about the truth value of the statement that sexists are more likely to be virgins (though I sort of doubt it), but using virgin as an insult is both dickish and an ad-Hominem.

Now that you mention it, yes, that really did bug me too when I first read the article. KF

sourmìlk wrote:I'm not worried about the truth value of the statement that sexists are more likely to be virgins (though I sort of doubt it), but using virgin as an insult is both dickish and an ad-Hominem.

I kinda thought he was being tongue in cheek with those comments, as he was responding to commenters that called him "gay" for not liking sexist artwork in comics.

The Great Hippo wrote:[T]he way we treat suspected terrorists genuinely terrifies me.

sourmìlk wrote:I'm not worried about the truth value of the statement that sexists are more likely to be virgins (though I sort of doubt it), but using virgin as an insult is both dickish and an ad-Hominem.

I may be giving the author too much credit, but I thought the idea wasn't to imply that virgins are losers, it was more along the lines of "if you are sexist enough to defend these point, you probably are a male who is bound to gender roles and evaluate other male's worth by how much they get laid. So let's poke where it hurts".

sourmìlk wrote:I'm not worried about the truth value of the statement that sexists are more likely to be virgins (though I sort of doubt it), but using virgin as an insult is both dickish and an ad-Hominem.

I may be giving the author too much credit, but I thought the idea wasn't to imply that virgins are losers, it was more along the lines of "if you are sexist enough to defend these point, you probably are a male who is bound to gender roles and evaluate other male's worth by how much they get laid. So let's poke where it hurts".

That's the interpretation I'm hoping is correct, which is why I'm not too fussed about it; but playing into sexist and heteronormative stereotypes is kind of dissonant and hypocritical in an article attacking sexism. Yes, it is humor. But it is also trying to make a point, and does it being comedy really mean you can't point out how it might be undercutting its own point?

I had a falling out with a close friend over stuff like this. I claimed that Bush had good intentions but that he was making mistakes. He declared that I was an idiot for seeing Bush as anything other than a demon hellbent on sucking the lifeblood of the US (or a puppet of another hellspawn).

Oh, and he claimed I was an idiot for even trying to bring up any type of criticisms about any righteous infallible heroic heroes like Mandela, MLK, or Harvey Milk. Never mind the manipulation and the lies, if it was for a good cause the ends always justifies the means!

CorruptUser wrote:I had a falling out with a close friend over stuff like this. I claimed that Bush had good intentions but that he was making mistakes. He declared that I was an idiot for seeing Bush as anything other than a demon hellbent on sucking the lifeblood of the US (or a puppet of another hellspawn).

Oh, and he claimed I was an idiot for even trying to bring up any type of criticisms about any righteous infallible heroic heroes like Mandela, MLK, or Harvey Milk. Never mind the manipulation and the lies, if it was for a good cause the ends always justifies the means!

I think this could have been a section of the article:

People critique those they like by their intentions - frequently assuming the best possible intentions - rationalising away observed differences between assumed intentions and observed actions. People critique those they dislike in the opposite fashion.

I think humans essentially operate driven by gut instinct - with the rational mind not so much directing and controlling belief as slavishly seeking to rationalise and justify conclusions already arrived at subconsciously.

elasto wrote:People critique those they like by their intentions - frequently assuming the best possible intentions - rationalising away observed differences between assumed intentions and observed actions. People critique those they dislike in the opposite fashion.

It's really just a case of extended attribution error. People attribute their own failures to situations and others' to personality flaws.

When I'm late, it's because the car wouldn't start and then traffic sucked, but everyone else should've left earlier in case they had traffic.

elasto wrote:People critique those they like by their intentions - frequently assuming the best possible intentions - rationalising away observed differences between assumed intentions and observed actions. People critique those they dislike in the opposite fashion.

It's really just a case of extended attribution error. People attribute their own failures to situations and others' to personality flaws.

When I'm late, it's because the car wouldn't start and then traffic sucked, but everyone else should've left earlier in case they had traffic.

People really think that? I mean, sure I understand people saying those things when arriving late to work to attempt to deflect blame. I've said I was late because of a traffic when really I was at a deli where the person who took my order forgot about me for 30 minutes and I am too non-confrontational to bring it up, but I really knew I should have left the deli earlier or gotten her attention and reminded her what I ordered.

Mighty Jalapeno wrote:Correct. Now explain how hypocrisy and being truthful are not mutually exclusive.

Because if I'm doing Y, but I say "you should do X", that doesn't make "you should do X" a lie.

FOR EXAMPLE.

Common occurence: let's say I, between drags on my cigarette, tell you that smoking is a filthy habit and you shouldn't start it. And you should quit it if you've already started.

Is that a lie? Am I being dishonest, just because I'm smoking while I say it? No, but I am being hypocritical. Maybe I have reason to be: maybe I'm not strong or dedicated enough to carry out what I know to be the right course of action, but that doesn't stop me from telling you what that course would be.

Or maybe I think smoking is awesome and I'm trying to keep all the cigarettes for myself. Only at that point would I be dishonest.

Other examples that I can think of (some more controversial than others):* Thinking a video game tactic is "cheap" and needs to be removed from a game, but abusing it anyway so that you can get a better score than the opponent.* A presidential candidate can be against Super-pacs but still use them because not using them would put him at a significant disadvantage against his foes.

They make terrible political points, but it doesn't change the fact that the debater is correct in his argument. He's just himself a hypocrite.

KnightExemplar wrote:* Thinking a video game tactic is "cheap" and needs to be removed from a game, but abusing it anyway so that you can get a better score than the opponent.* A presidential candidate can be against Super-pacs but still use them because not using them would put him at a significant disadvantage against his foes.

I don't know that either of those would be necessarily "hypocritical"; it depends on the actual stance expressed. If the gamer says "they should take out this cheat" but uses it anyway, or if the candidate says "Super PACs shouldn't be legal" but raises funds with them, that's just working in the real world. They may honestly wish the rules were different, but they don't have a problem working with the rules they're given. But If the gamer says "people shouldn't use this cheat" or the candidate says "people shouldn't accept the support of Super PACs", then we're dealing with hypocrisy.

I've actually seen Belial's smoking example IRL -- a friend's dad was trying to quit, but couldn't do it. He pulled over and lit a cigarette, passionately admonishing us the whole time never to take up smoking. Hypocrisy, yes, but not unreasonably so...

Mighty Jalapeno wrote:Exactly. You're lying to yourself, no matter how you slice it.

I'm actually not seeing how that amounts to "lying to yourself". The person knows smoking is bad for them, would like to quit because they know it is (quite truthfully) bad for them, but ends up not quitting because of something else. That person knows exactly why they're not quitting or not going to quit.